Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 28.57143% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.75%. Comparing base (ad80ac2) to head (a6635b1).

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (84.75%) is below the target coverage (90.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

@@                  Coverage Diff                  @@
##           TDE_REL_17_STABLE     #419      +/-   ##
=====================================================
- Coverage              84.92%   84.75%   -0.18%     
=====================================================
  Files                     21       21              
  Lines                   2561     2565       +4     
  Branches                 394      393       -1     
=====================================================
- Hits                    2175     2174       -1     
- Misses                   306      311       +5     
  Partials                  80       80              

I agree that it should be consistently named of course, but is add/delete the pair we want to go with rather than add/remove? I recall you mentioning you had a naming scheme for such pairs in some other project.

I agree that it should be consistently named of course, but is add/delete the pair we want to go with rather than add/remove? I recall you mentioning you had a naming scheme for such pairs in some other project.

My take here related to fact that function named tde_smgr_delete_key, but record type is XLOG_TDE_REMOVE_RELATION_KEY.

Logically it looks like it should be vice versa, principal key should be removed, as it continue to exist in key management system and relation key should be deleted, as it no longer exists.

I agree that it should be consistently named of course, but is add/delete the pair we want to go with rather than add/remove? I recall you mentioning you had a naming scheme for such pairs in some other project.

My take here related to fact that function named tde_smgr_delete_key, but record type is XLOG_TDE_REMOVE_RELATION_KEY.

Logically it looks like it should be vice versa, principal key should be removed, as it continue to exist in key management system and relation key should be deleted, as it no longer exists.

Yeah we're really inconsistent with this as the function that emits the ADD record is called create. Good catch with the missing description!